Knock It Off!

Here’s what it is like to live in our world! We get hate mail like this from Chris. Here is his complete email, with our comments interspersed.

Subject: Knock it off

Date: May 2, 2015

Your website isn't working. There are still millions out there who believe in evolution.

If our website isn’t working, why does he care and want us to “knock it off”?

The evidence for it is also quite the mountain load, so you might as well give up and let science win. And how dare you call evolution a lie. If it's science, then it completely agrees with each other to begin with.

As is typical of the hate mail we get, he claims there is a “mountain load” of evidence for evolution, but doesn’t say what it is.

Don't try to promote creation since you know well that religion is only something faith based. Just because it's the bible [sic] doesn't mean it's true. After all, what were you taught your whole life? Oh yeah, DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ! This is an exception with science, since science is a bunch of information that can be proven. Religion cannot be proven because it doesn't qualify as science. No matter how much you try, you'll never convince the public that this or that was a real event. After all, if the bible [sic] is correct, then where is the ark now? Where is the Garden? And how come we haven't found the bones of Adam and Eve? Try to figure that one out, sir. Checkmate. I win.

We responded by asking him to tell us what the “mountain load” of evidence for evolution is. We specifically told him to give us a scientific explanation, and even said, “ ‘Evolution must be true because the Bible is false’ is not a scientific answer.”

We also took this opportunity to see if he understands how science works by writing to him,

I don't understand why you say, "No matter how much you try, you'll never convince the public that this or that was a real event." What is “this or that” event we are trying to prove?

We admit to trying to prove our Kentucky Derby Limit theorem, which we proposed in our June, 1999, newsletter, http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v3i9f.htm. (By the way, American Pharaoh confirmed our theorem again yesterday.) Our Kentucky Derby Limit theorem is real science. We made an observation. We took some measurements that confirmed our observation. We proposed a theory (based upon genetics) to explain the phenomenon revealed by the measurements. We made predictions about future races, which have been confirmed 15 years in a row. Our theorem could have been falsified multiple times in those past 15 years—but it wasn’t.

The theory of evolution holds as one of its postulates that there is no limit to how much a species can evolve. Evolutionists say this lack of a limit allowed a dinosaur to evolve into a hummingbird. Evolutionists say lots of microevolution eventually leads to macroevolution. We said that isn’t true. We said there is a limit to how much a species can evolve. In particular, we said there is a limit to how fast a horse can run. For more than 140 years, many people have spent many millions of dollars trying to breed horses that can run 1.25 miles as quickly as possible. Race horses got steadily faster from 1896 up until they reached the Kentucky Derby Limit in 1960. That is real, scientific proof that microevolution does not proceed without limit. Furthermore, running faster isn’t an unfair test. If we had claimed there is a limit to microevolution because horses have not evolved wings (or even feathers), that would have been an unfair test. But running just a little bit faster isn’t an unreasonable request. The assertion that species can evolve without limits is contrary to well-documented scientific observations at Churchill Downs every May.

We do agree that religion isn’t science, so we ended our response to him with these words:

Why are you asking us about Adam and Eve's bones? We don't even know where Jimmy Hoffa's bones are. (Does the fact Hoffa's bones have never been found prove to you that he never existed?) We don’t know where Natalee Holloway’s bones are, either; but we are pretty sure she existed, too, even though I never met her personally.

As you said, religion isn’t science. What does any religious belief have to do with evolution? Why do evolutionists always change the subject away from science, and drag religion into it?

We aren't playing chess--but it is your move. We really want you to give us any scientific evidence that proves the theory of evolution, or any specific factual error we have ever made on our website. Is that too much to ask?

Here’s his entire response, sent May 4.

Oh you better believe all the money in the world I'll give you a good slate of evidence. But before I begin, I'm just gonna say again how disappointed I am that you reject a widely accepted fact. Ok, enough chit chat, here's your evidence my good sir.

First and foremost, let us begin with the story of the first book of Genesis itself. This tidbit tells us all that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Then it goes on to say how the light was formed and the land and the animals, and eventually human beings. Now, with this in mind, ask yourself this; If Adam and Eve were real people, then how come we haven't found their bony remains? We've been at work looking at what was left of some of history's most famous and yet we still haven't found any sign of the first man and woman fossilized. However, there are so many unidentified skeletal corpses out there that any of them could be the latter, but with rebuttal once more, how do we know it's them? Until we find Adam and Eve and what is left of them, this is one piece of evidence that correlates with my point.

Second, let's talk transition. As you know, transition is how one thing changes into. For example, in humans, children transition over to teens and teens to adults. This is another good point to make with organisms we find in the fossil record. While both evolutionists and creationists can agree at the same time that there is a rather large fossil record, both groups will battle it out with what we call transitional fossils. These are the remains of ancient creatures that show how they change into a different creature. Let's talk about the animal that was responsible for the arrival of the tetrapods, Tiktaalik. This was a prehistoric species that lived during the Devonian Period. When you look up a picture of it, look at the features. It has the tail and scales of a fish, but wait, you suddenly look to see limbs that are what fins are now. Hmm... Sounds like another piece of evidence for evolution. It evolved into what land dwelling creatures we see these days and even back millions of years ago. And just so you know, just because no one was around to witness evolution, according to you, doesn't mean science can test it.

How about "bird hipped" dinosaurs? Doesn't that tell you anything about evolution? If it doesn't, I'll start this by saying that we were all taught by our science teachers that the flappy little songbirds and much larger birds of prey we see today came from the largest creatures to ever stomp on the earth. Theropods are categorized to have birdlike hips, so something about that needs to be said thus it can only make sense that our bird feeder friends are related to Tyrannosaurus Rex and his avian hipped buddies.

Lastly, can we discuss the Grand Canyon? Ok, we shall. It is claimed by creationists that the Flood of Noah was responsible for forming this wonder of the United States. But what you don't realize is that the lack of such beauty exists in other parts of the world. So if the Flood did happen, then how come there aren't Grand Canyons on other continents? This disproves Flood geology and proves evolutionary geology.

There's your evidence. Now try to figure it out, and let me know when you understand for all purposes that your site is nothing more than propaganda that is forcing the masses to turn away from real science. How dare you call evolution a lie.

Religion

We asked him for scientific evidence, and he came back with Adam and Eve, and Noah. He did not address our Kentucky Derby Limit.

Coincidentally, on the same day we received an email from someone else asking us our opinion on a video in which someone tried to make the case that one can be a Christian and still believe in evolution. Many people have argued that one can believe in the Bible and evolution; but we have never heard anyone claim that one can be an atheist and NOT believe in evolution. In fact, we have never even heard anyone ask the question, “Can one reject evolution and still be an atheist?” Perhaps it is true that one can’t be an atheist without believing in evolution. If so, then no matter how compelling the scientific evidence is, an atheist cannot reject evolution. That’s why evolutionists always defend the theory by attacking the Bible.

Human Bones

Chris’ first point was,

If Adam and Eve were real people, then how come we haven't found their bony remains? … Until we find Adam and Eve and what is left of them, this is one piece of evidence that correlates with my point.

He thinks that is a logical, scientific argument! If you can’t find their bones, they didn’t exist. Did he stop to think that the myth of human evolution depends upon the existence of many transitional hominids whose bones have never been found? The lack of bones is actually an excellent argument against evolution!

Transitional Forms

Let’s go on to his second point.

Second, let's talk transition. As you know, transition is how one thing changes into. For example, in humans, children transition over to teens and teens to adults.

Is he intentionally confusing evolution with maturity, or does he really not know the difference?

His compelling evidence for transition was Tiktaalik. We did write about Tiktaalik when it was discovered. 1 We hope you will go back and read our thorough analysis of the published reports. Notice that Chris is willing to accept Tiktaalik as a transitional form just from an artist’s picture of it. He thinks that if things look similar, they must be related. But, as we pointed out nine years ago, there are several features which don’t look like they should. Not only is it impossible to determine heredity from physical appearance, Tiktaalik doesn’t even look right.

Science

He said,

And just so you know, just because no one was around to witness evolution, according to you, doesn't mean science can test it.

We think he intended to say that even a phenomenon that has never been observed can be scientifically verified. If so, he rejects the traditional concept of The Scientific Method and accepts the modern concept of Science by Consensus, which is free of the burden of observation and experimental proof. He believes that whatever the majority believes must be true. (Unless, of course, the majority believes the Bible .)

The next point he makes is,

I'll start this by saying that we were all taught by our science teachers that the flappy little songbirds and much larger birds of prey we see today came from the largest creatures to ever stomp on the earth.

In his first email to us, he shouted (in all caps) that we should not believe everything we read. But, apparently he thinks it is OK to believe everything a science teacher says, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Who’s Winning?

The first two sentences of his first email to us were:

Your website isn't working. There are still millions out there who believe in evolution.

But the second to last sentence in his second email contains the phrase,

… your site is nothing more than propaganda that is forcing the masses to turn away from real science.

How can a website, which isn’t working, force masses to turn away from real science?

Chris seems to be a product of public education, which really is forcing masses to turn away from real science by substituting philosophy and speculation for the Scientific Method. The theory of evolution cannot be established using the Scientific Method. That’s why the Scientific Method has been denigrated in public schools and replaced by consensus.